Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Gordon

Supreme Court of Ohio

May 23, 2018

The State of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
Gordon, Appellant.

          Submitted February 27, 2018

          Certified by the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 28191, 2017-Ohio-5796.

          Denise E. Ferguson, for appellant.

          Fischer, J.

         {¶ 1} This case was accepted as a certified conflict between judgments of the Ninth District and Fifth District Courts of Appeals. The Ninth District certified the issue in conflict as follows:

"Whether the post-release control notification of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e) must include notification of the penalty provisions in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1)-(2), specifically, whether a trial court must inform an offender at the time of sentencing that the commission of a felony during a period of post-release control permits a trial court to impose a new prison term for the violation to be served consecutively with any prison term for the new felony."

150 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2017-Ohio-7843, 82 N.E.3d 1175, quoting the court of appeals' journal entry.

         {¶ 2} Applying the plain language of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e), we hold that the statute does not require that a trial court notify an offender at his initial sentencing hearing of the penalty provisions contained in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) and (2) (provisions that apply only when an offender is convicted of committing a new felony while serving a period of postrelease control).

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 3} In March 2015, appellant, Bruce Gordon, was indicted on two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) (victims less than 13 years of age), with a factual allegation that Gordon purposely compelled the victims to submit by force or threat of force. Gordon was also charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) (victims less than 13 years of age). A jury found him guilty on all counts.

         {¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 55 years to life in prison.

         {¶ 5} The trial court imposed the mandatory term of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing and also provided Gordon with notification of his postrelease-control term in the sentencing entry. The entry also advised Gordon that if he were convicted of a "new felony offense while on post-release control, the sentencing court [could] impose a prison term for the new felony offense as well as an additional consecutive prison term for the post-release control violation of twelve months or whatever time remains on [his] post-release control period, whichever is greater."

         {¶ 6} Gordon timely appealed his conviction and sentence to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. On appeal, he raised seven assignments of error related to his trial and sentence. In his fourth assignment of error, Gordon argued that "[t]he trial court committed reversible and plain error when it sentenced [him] without properly giving him all the required notifications as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) and concerning post-release control." The Ninth District overruled six of Gordon's seven assignments of error, including his above-quoted fourth assignment of error. The Ninth District did remand the case to the trial court after determining that the trial court had made insufficient findings at the sentencing hearing related to the imposition of consecutive sentences. The Ninth District also granted Gordon's motion to certify a conflict with the Fifth District's judgment in State v. Johnson, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0035, 2016-Ohio-7931. We recognized the conflict. 150 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2017-Ohio-7843, 82 N.E.3d 1175.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.